I was never convinced that the supposed benefits of HS2 warranted the expense.
It always struck me as a bit of a vanity project.
From the off I'd have rather the money was spent upgrading the network as a whole - that way all rail network customers get something

That would be a huge mistake, we need updated transport links, ours compared to elsewhere are medieval in comparison.

It will take a few minutes of the travel time, it will uproot people, it will cost a fortune. would it not be a good idea to sort out what we have now first? The train service in this country is awful, dirty carriages, late, sometimes cancelled because they are so late. Engines that have had their day.

This part private, part public ownership should also be looked at, either put the whole lot in private hands or put it all in public hands. propping up the stations and the network with taxpayers money so private companies can rake in the money needs to stop.

That would be a huge mistake, we need updated transport links, ours compared to elsewhere are medieval in comparison.

Then if we are serious about upgrading our infrastructure there are better ways to spend an absolute fortune than modestly speeding up a train journey out of London which wont go anywhere near large parts of the UK.

That would be a huge mistake, we need updated transport links, ours compared to elsewhere are medieval in comparison.

Then if we are serious about upgrading our infrastructure there are better ways to spend an absolute fortune than modestly speeding up a train journey out of London which wont go anywhere near large parts of the UK.

I would agree. However the primary purpose of HS2 is not to speed up a train journey out of London, modestly or otherwise. It is about increasing capacity on currently overcrowded routes.

That would be a huge mistake, we need updated transport links, ours compared to elsewhere are medieval in comparison.

Then if we are serious about upgrading our infrastructure there are better ways to spend an absolute fortune than modestly speeding up a train journey out of London which wont go anywhere near large parts of the UK.

I would agree. However the primary purpose of HS2 is not to speed up a train journey out of London, modestly or otherwise. It is about increasing capacity on currently overcrowded routes.

Ministers are about to start pouring £4.5 billion a year, every year for a decade, into building a single new railway route: HS2. To put this into perspective, the amount annually maintaining and upgrading the rest of the rail network is £6 billion.

The London to Birmingham route is already relatively well served, with trains only 43 per cent full on average, and around 70 per cent at peak.

HS2 has been sold as a way of ending the UK’s chronic north-south divide. But why build a multi-billion-pound, marginally quicker service connecting London to Birmingham, and then Manchester and Leeds, when these cities are already connected to the capital?

HS2 is ultimately built around an ever more London-centric vision of the UK’s economic future. It is as if the best possible thing that can be done for the north is to let those living there come to London a bit faster.

Over the past ten years, government spending per head on transport across the north of England has been little more than a third of that in London.

HS2: The Great Train Robbery is on Channel 4 Dispatches on Monday at 8 p.m.

I was never convinced that the supposed benefits of HS2 warranted the expense.
It always struck me as a bit of a vanity project.
From the off I'd have rather the money was spent upgrading the network as a whole - that way all rail network customers get something

Why is the rest of the world investing heavily in high speed rail yet it is seen as "vanity" project here?

It's not a matter of HS2 vs upgrading the rest of the network. Both are required. HS2 is the backbone which connects all of the other projects together.